‘No Food Rights’ Judge quits to work for Monsanto law firm

As courts and bureaucrats continue to assert that citizens have no fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, we find Monsanto lurking nearby. The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.

GTL had sued several biotechnology firms, a medical lab and a crime lab that had used its patented methods for analyzing DNA sequences. Though a federal case, the district court which heard the matter sits in Dane County, Wisconsin, where Fiedler coincidentally served as a state judge.

In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) “upheld Genetic Technologies Ltd.’s patent for noncoding DNA technologies, giving more firepower to the Australian company’s patent infringement suit against Monsanto Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and a slew of rival laboratories,” reports Law360.

In another link, Myriad Genetics, which holds the exclusive U.S. patent on human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, granted the license to GTL in 2002. These human genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.

In 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) sued the PTO, Myriad Genetics, and principals at the University of Utah Research Foundation, charging that patents on genes are unconstitutional and invalid. The suit also charges that such patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.

In an absurd ruling this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the patent on these human genes, even though the DNA sequence occurs in nature. The court decided that simply because researchers had been able to extract it, the firm owns it. Of course, under this thinking, all of nature can be patented if human technology allows extraction.

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented,” said the ACLU. “A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents.”

The US ruling gives Myriad monopolistic control over these human genes, and over diagnostic testing for that DNA sequence. The case is now headed to the US Supreme Court.

The Myriad patent was also challenged in Australia and at the European Patent Office. In 2009, the EPO granted a highly restricted BRCA1 patent.

Australia’s case will be heard in February 2012. Dr Luigi Palombi, who supports the pending Patent Amendment Bill, believes the US decision “is irrational, contrary to scientific fact and little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the fear mongering of the American biotechnology industry. It claims that without gene patents it will not have any incentive to undertake necessary research. Of course, this is a lie.”

Part of the problem, Palombi explains, is that much of the research that allowed Myriad to develop its breast cancer test was publicly funded. Going further:

“The decision turns patent law on its head because it means that the prize is given for the discovery not for the invention (a new, tangible and practical use of the discovery).

“The second problem is, Myriad’s scientists discovered and linked genetic mutations to breast and ovarian cancers, but that’s a long way off an invention. If there was any invention by Myriad (assuming it was also novel and involved an inventive step), it was in the development of a diagnostic test.”

Of note, in his dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson wrote that the Dept. of Justice filed an amicus brief asserting that Myriad’s gene claims are not patent-eligible, thus undermining the PTO’s position. Bryson wrote:

“… the Department of Justice speaks for the Executive Branch, and the PTO is part of the Executive Branch, so it is fair to assume that the Executive Branch has modified its position from the one taken by the PTO in its 2001 guidelines…”

Given the DOJ’s protection of Monsanto interests, however, it is likely that its opposition to Myriad’s patents may have more to do with stifling competition than protecting nature from theft by biotech firms. After DOJ attorney Elena Kagen moved to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled in Monsanto’s favor allowing the planting of genetically modified alfalfa.

Earlier this year, Obama pressured the USDA to remove the buffer zone requirement for GM alfalfa, further ensuring genetic contamination of natural alfalfa. That decision ensures the destruction of the organic meat and dairy industries in the U.S. which rely on natural alfalfa feed. It will also strengthen biotech’s monopoly control over our food.

Obama has stacked his administration with Monsanto employees and biotech proponents, including Michael Taylor as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, Islam Siddiqui as Ag Trade Representative, and Elena Kagen on the Supreme Court.

In a related matter, PubPat also filed suit this year against Monsanto over the patenting of genetically modified seeds which contaminate natural crops. “As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint, citing studies showing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.

That any official would approve gene patents is bad enough – discovering nature is not inventing it. But in the Wisconsin case, Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:

“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”

“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”

“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and

Cannot enter into private contracts “outside the scope of the State’s police power.”

Ruling against raw milk forces consumers to drink genetically modified, antibiotic-laden milk from cows fed an unnatural diet of pesticide-loaded feed. No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.

This case begs for competent legal counsel who can get the outrageous decision overturned.

It is not that simple to say they merely deserve each other, I’m afraid. These outrageous decisions affect us, and once these laws are in place they very hard to change. But yes I agree… they should rot in Hell.

Well the judge makes it easy to know where he suckles from. But the more he sucks up to Monsanto’s dollars, greed and destruction–the less he, his children and grandchildren will be sustained. He courts death, not only for “the people” but for himself.

After reading the judge’s ruling (which you thoughtfully provide a link to), it is firstly important to recognize that this was not a trial but a “summary judgment” – that is, a decision based upon legal briefs to avoid an actual (expensive) trial. The ruling indicates that the judge felt the arguments presented by those interested in consuming raw milk were not adequate to rule in their favor – e.g. that the people of Wisconsin do not have a “fundamental right” (i.e. one enshrined in the Constitution) to own a dairy herd. While I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any kind of lawyer, for that matter), I suspect that not having a “fundamental right” is NOT the same as saying one does not have “the right”, which is what your headline of this article states. In any case, what I can surmise from the ruling most readily is not that the judge was biased (though he may have been), but rather that the raw milk interests did not engaged someone skilled in legal arguments to represent their interests. For a judge to assert that the arguments are “wholly without merit” and “extremely underdeveloped” is quite a strong rebuke of their attempts to assert their position from a legal standpoint, and not one that a judge would risk without having fairly clear grounds on which to state them. The fact that the ruling is an expansion and clarification of an earlier ruling, at the request of the raw milk interests for clarification, likewise suggests that the motion for summary judgment was considered such poor advocacy that the judge didn’t even take it seriously and ruled without providing significant reasoning for the ruling.
The judge did provide ample examples of how the legal arguments lacked merit, which can serve as guideposts for how to improve their approach.
What is unclear in this, is where things stand for raw milk advocates in Wisconsin – i.e. whether people are currently acting in conflict with the law to consume raw milk or own a portion of a cow in order to do so, and that the support of these rulings were actually necessary to legalize this, or if this legal maneuver was an attempt to clarify a legal gray area.
If Wisconsin’s raw milk interests were to garner more skillful legal advocacy, they might actually have a good shot at achieving their aims.

You stated this: “….I suspect that not having a “fundamental right” is NOT the same as saying one does not have “the right”, which is what your headline of this article states.” You suspect the terms are not the same? The term “fundamental” is an explicit definition that strikes at the core and heart of basic human and American rights.

Your comment only highlights the perversity of this story. Yes, Monsanto and its minions are bought and paid for by a legal machine. Yes, privately owned farms do need MORE LAWYERS. The judge’s very un-American and corporate loyalties could not be more clear.

Monsanto, no matter how much money it has, is NOT sustainable. Its technologies are destructive–and ultimately self destructive. Yes, they are “tooooo big.” They will topple. And the momentum against them, along with a growing group of legal defenders, is just beginning to surge.

Wow, a well considered response! These things are SO rare on ‘the net’ I find the idea of the government getting into what we choose to consume to be WAY over-reaching, but the unfortunate reality is that too many folks, whom I agree with at the rudimentary level, react FAR too emotionally and often with disturbing, antisocial, downright childish B.S. Like saying they hope the judge chokes, or dies of GMO poisoning, stuff like that. It’s counterproductive, and wards off sensible folks who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause. Good post, Shawtimothy!

People are a little sensitive, Ron, because small farmers everywhere have been criminalized–even held at gunpoint–for selling “organic” food. Pardon people for overreacting. Judging from your response you have not been involved at the ground level of farming and food production in this country. Small American farms have been being systematically run out of business by corporate interests who use lawyers, lobbyists and surveillance contractors to strongarm and intimidate farmers off their farms. That should be a shame to anyone who gives a damn. It should make you wonder a lot. If you think it’s prudent to not overreact to the judge’s ruling, it’s also realistic to view the judge’s ruling as foundational to the case. His words are unequivocally and fundamentally against every natural human right. Follow the money Ron. It’s all about the giant producers manipulating laws and policies for profit. Everything–including your human rights–begins and ends with “paperwork.” Don’t be so soft.

Actually Rita,telling me not to be so soft is kinda humorous, heheh. One area I’m quite active in is helping get peoples right to backyard chickenkeeping recognized (mostly in Georgia), and most of the grassroots level folks accuse me of being way too hard, heheh.

I assure you, I’m not at all soft on issues like this. Not even remotely. When I ‘play,’ I play hardball. But I don’t make crap up. I don’t overreact and misrepresent. I zero in on the weaknesses of the oppositions position. For me, that is generally City and County Officials. I scare the begeezers out of them . . .because I don’t get all romantic, nostalgic, overzealous, and emotional. I take it right to them, in a direct, forthright, and businesslike manner. Now “businesslike” doesn’t necessarily mean “polite” either. Frankly, “polite” is generally viewed as a weakness by officials and bureaucrats. Nearly as weak as emotional and passionate pleas are viewed. . . particularly when such emotional pleas are peppered with exaggerated claims and misrepresentations.

I do not pardon people for “overreacting.” I tell them to “stop that” and fight smart. The Judges ‘ruling’ is in fact an important aspect of the issue, as you point out. The question is “How does the judges ruling make overreacting and misrepresenting material realities a useful tenet of the fight?” Answer: it doesn’t. The reality of the Judges ruling stands on it’s own, no need to exaggerate, misrepresent, and play contextual and semantic shell games with the ruling.
For example: His ruling was not “unequivocally and fundamentally against every natural human right.” That is a rather extreme exaggeration actually. It is fundamentally contra to a fairly narrow scope of natural human rights. This is the reality. Certainly not “every” natural right, not by a longshot.

This is exactly what I mean about polluting ones own cause with melodramatic, innaccurate hyperbole. It doesn’t help a cause at all and can actually hold it back. So again, I can not pardon folks for overreacting. They need to stop that.

So your big issue is hyperbole. I get it. You are logical. The judge is logical. But even the biggest lies on earth can be “logical.” Lying with logic goes on in law and policymaking everyday–it’s quite an art. People do get sensitive and filled with indignance when the terms of the “law” remind them too much of how rights of small farmers are being threatened or how farmers are being driven off their land. If your talent, Ron, is being logical then why don’t you use it to help small farmers respond to unlawful lawsuits? Cause not everyone has that talent.

I forgot to mention: I certainly have been and continue to be “involved at the ground level of farming and food production in this country.” I’ve grown veggies to sell at my own Veggie stand, I used to raise giant watermelons that I sold to caterers for use as centerpieces, and presently we raise chickens, for fun, and of course meat, eggs and yes, even profit. Even held the state record in Florida for largest cucumber for awhile, and used to give seminars at the Ag center on backyard farming. In essence: Been there, done that, still doin it”

No Rita, Hyperbole is not my “big issue.” But yes, I am logical. I find it odd you seem to infer that as a bad thing. Yes the biggest lies on earth can be logical. But one thing is for sure, there is very little logic in knee-jerk reaction. You’re also correct that “logical lies” go on in making policy and making/interpreting law. You seem to be implying, and I hope you aren’t, that logic is a bad thing. it isn’t. The thing to do is use logic with the truth. Lying about what the judge says is no better than “their lies” as I suppose you see it. Again . . .gotta stop that. One thing about lies, is that logical or not, they fall apart if countered with truthful logic.

I’m not sure where you get the inclination that I don’t help small farmers respond to unlawful action on the part of Government. I most certainly do, at least when practicable. The cold reality, like it or not, is that small farmers get short-sticked because, well . . .life isn’t fair, and they tend to do a crappy job of standing up for their rights. No, they shouldn’t even have to. They really shouldn’t. But it’s happening, fair or not.

I’m not “helping” directly with this issue, mainly because I’m down here in Georgia. I work. I already devote a fair amount of my free time to helping others deal with governmental issues. That being said, I am helping though. As I write this. GREAT advice: Stop fighting lies, exaggerations and half truths with your sides lies, exaggerations, and half truths. When a group of farmers and their supporters do that, they are fighting professional liars, folks WAY more skilled than they are. Stick with the realities, the “logic” and the truth . . .that confuses them, particularly when the realities are laid out calmly, cooly, and with forthright determination

I was sincere when I said you should use your talents to help small farmers. I’m glad you do. You are right–small farmers are fighting professional liars. We all know the legal system is full of lies. Lies have been justifying slavery and war in the name of profit for ages. That’s why we need lawyers. I wish we could have more great lawyers working for smaller farms. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund is one of the greatest resources for small farmers right now. http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/. But regardless, the judge’s language is the epitome of manipulating language–he uses blatant words to talk about integral rights farmers do not have–and then justifies his terms by putting them within a certain “context.” It is unacceptable. It is the kind of rationale to expect from a lawyer–not a judge who supposedly stands for American fundamental natural rights. What is more sickening than the judge’s ruling is the fact it is in court in the first place. When our economy is struggling, why are we attacking people who are contributing with honest good products–which have happy customers? Why are these farmers being forced to waste their time and resources in court to begin with–when their products are safer and superior to what is coming off of giant factory farms (where oversight is a joke)? Where is the logic in this kind of system? The logic is out the window becasue consumers and big producers have been out of their senses from being brainwashed. All you have to do is use the senses you were born with to taste the differences in good vs. crappy food–and we could call it a day in court.

remember that the purpose of all this is to lower the population of the earth from 7 billion to 650 million. it will be easier to controlus..poison our food ,make us sick,pharmaciticals will feed us pills, jobs will continue to flow to china ,more useless damn will be built,.amd monsanto will influence all the elite in its path of destruction.maybe they should be charged with treason to their own country,i thought americans loved their country,the highers up have no morals they,re selling out the american people.canada is next.the rothchilds and rockefellers of the world don,t need money,they want the power.

The judge did not rule that people do not have those rights. The judge ruled that those arguments didn’t apply because the plaintiffs were operating a dairy farm. A dairy farm, which produces a product for consumers, has to meet standards higher than those which apply to people who simply want to own cows and drink their milk. He (astutely) concluded that the arguments were simply a smokescreen being used to protect a dairy farm which was violating Wisconsin quality control standards.

Seems pretty evident to me that those who thought that the Bush Administration was in Monsanto’s pocket and that we’d be better off with a Democratic administration were sadly deluded. Obama has been one of the biggest friends Monsanto could have. Hope and change we can believe in, right?

“Seems pretty evident” people better wake up and realize “the government” has long been sold out and on its knees to Corporate and World Bank interests. Those powerful players make mafia cartels look like nice guys. ANY president in office is playing in a minefield where he can easily be assasinated by taking down agendas and policies put in place long ago by Corporations. Obama has fought for transparency in corporations, but “the people” won’t get it–they still keep consuming whatever the gas, pharmaceutical and Big-food companies spit out. They insist on their big giant cars, their synthetic drugs and their cheap shitty food.

Presidents are dealing with food/pharmaceutical/oil corporations, which can be traced to chemical warfare companies back to WWII and concentration camps. Their POLICIES are not nice. The government sold out long ago to big business–the very thing Thomas Jefferson warned agains again and again. It aint easy playing president in the quagmire that has been allowed to fester.

I agree with you, except the implication that Obama actually fights for what is right and is simply a helpless victim in a corrupt system. Certainly, there are things Obama has tried to do that were blocked by Congress. But then again, there are also a lot of thing he HAS accomplished which have had extremely negative effects and/or have served to unequivocally uphold the corrupt status quo, like appointing cabinet members with ties to Monsanto and Wall Street and other corporate interests. Furthermore, when you consider the way campaigns are run these days (i.e. no candidate even stands a chance if he/she is not funded with millions of corporate dollars), it is naive to think that Obama, or anyone else with a viable chance to win the Presidency, is truly a representative of the people or the people’s interests.

The corruption in the political system makes it a minefield for any president to fight for what is right. Big Business is so powerful, it can play the president like a puppet. We might think the president appoints who he believes in, but you can bet he has big guns pointed at him from many directions for every appointment he makes. The revolving door of Big Corporations is entrenched in Washington at every corner–and they do not play by any rules. They make the Mafia look old fashioned.

Oh, come on. You really think Big Business would even let someone get to the presidency these days if he wasn’t already in on the master plan? There’s a reason why Goldman Sachs was a top donor in both Obama and McCain’s campaign. Big Business decides which two candidates will lead the political theater that people mistake for Democracy in this country.

That’s my point. ANY president is forced to his knees by corporations–whether he be idealistic or treacherous himself. For anyone to blame the president for signing off on bad policies is naive. Too many people underestimate the real power of elite Corporations over Government. Until the masses stop buying into the money trail of deceit, death and destruction–nothing can improve.

Good point…I was thinking this as well and while it is all very scary and wrong…I think his involvement bothers me the most. I realize the current administration knowingly jumped into a huge cluster f#*#! But what’s next? What about co-ops and the smart dedicated folks involved and farmer markets with growing popularity? Maybe I’m unduly paranoid now but it seems hitting to close to home.

I have been to Wisconsin and loved the countryside, but there are a lot of stupid SODS that really need to wake up and stick to this judge by demanding a grand jury investigation, and requiring testimony instead of jumping up and down in some sort of stupid protest.

A fiat ruling from a prostituted judge doesn’t constitute an enforceable law. Summary judgement was used as this tripe wouldn’t make it past a Wisconsin jury. The corporations’ fear is palpable. These dying saurians are drowning in the tarpits of their own creation, and they are flailing about wildly, trying to lash out at anything within reach that they can destroy before their inevitable extinction. Monsanto is a shot rhino, charging at full speed for a hundred yards or so before it falls over dead.

Why is this story not all over the front page, and on the news. To me, legal argument aside, the whole
premise that one cannot own a cow and drink it’s milk is … well… it’s totally insane. This is not 1311, it’s 2011. We have got to start putting a searchlight on this kind of judicial ruling, or we’re all in deep doo doo. It makes me sad, that everyone in the media is on some kind of sleep medication. WAKE THE HELL UP, WILL YA !!!

Wait, what? Are the folks posting here really saying that a business producing a food product should not be subject to regulation or any sort of state production standards? If the dairy farm in this case can produce cow’s milk for human consumption free of any regulatory oversight or standards of quality, are you going to afford that same freedom to Hormel or Del Monte? Mmmm… I can taste the salmonella now…

No, the “folks” posting are not saying there should be no regulation. Quality small operations have all kinds of stringent standards or they would be out of business. But what too many people like yourself don’t realize is that the big factory farms are trying to put the small operations out of business by creating IMPOSSIBLE and UNNECESSARY rules and regulations (mostly administrative tracking and red tape which takes up all the farmers’ time)–which of course the big factory farms do NOT adhere to. If you will do your research you will discover that all the pathogens come from larger operations and the regulations being pushed are so beyond reasonable that the inspectors at the large operations cannot begin to follow up with all the so-called checks. The result is that the BIG farms slide by without any real oversight. They are bought and paid for by their own policymakers who have infiltrated Washington.

The sad fact is most people don’t realize high volume production is a cesspool of pathogens waiting to happen. You simply can’t handle large volumes of food with the hands on stewardship that occurs naturally within a smaller operation. Also, food security is compromised in large mono-culture factory farms, where one pathogen can wipe out a whole herd or crop–whereas in smaller operations, one pathogen is easily managed naturally due to the integrity of a biodiverse system, which increases immunity. You are being bamboozled by the bullshit. Quit believing the idyllic farm pictures on the labels in stores. Those are just part of the marketing you’ve been weaned on.

It’s time people stop perceiving small farmers as dumb throwbacks and start realizing that small ecological farmers are some of the most sophisticated, conscientious and educated people in the world.

Do some research through sources like Acres Magazine or Joel Salatin and you will learn more than you ever dreamed possible about soil, sustainable eco-systems, healthy herds, biology, minerals, micro-organisms, water management, fertility—and how REAL farmers raise prolific amounts of healthy, nutrient-dense food sources on small tracts of land. They do it with common sense and innovative scientific systems–instead of justifying greedy policies and politics with fake marketing,which covers up creepy lab experiments and silences honest scientists.

what private citizens do among themselves regarding our food supply, when it involves no public commerce, should not be regulated. We’ll take the risk associated with a private food buying club; we’re adults. We don’t need Big Brother telling us what to eat and charging us for producing it.

I also read the content before its really true according to Wisconsin judge rule that the every citizen have right to consume their own food i think it’s not right because every person have right to take the food their own choice because every person do efforts to make food so its his right that they take food their own choice

At first I was completely bewildered as to how you could possibly think this had anything to do with communism at all. Then it dawned on me: Some people think that Communism = Totalitarianism, or total government control. This is simply not true. I won’t get into an explanation of the principles of Communism here (though I suggest you educate yourself on the matter) because at heart of your misunderstanding is really just a lack of logical reasoning. While it may be true that some Communist countries became Totalitarian regimes, this does NOT then mean that Communism = Totalitarianism. Any system can devolve into Totalitarianism. So what we have here, with the Monsanto example and with our government in general, is an example of Totalitarian Capitalism. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Communism.

Page four of document: “Furthermore, the court found that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the sale and/or distribution and consumption of unpasteurized milk through Wis.Stat 97.24(2) and other provisions because it can result in serious illness.” Funny. My mother and ever other mother in the county would have gotten in trouble with this judge because they fed their babies cow’s milk -straight from the cow – as soon as we were brought home from the hospital! I’m 51 and healthy as a horse! Yes, we do have a right to consume whatever food we want. And others have the right to sell it, just keep it on the up and up.